Copernius, Galileo wrong. Church right. Any apologies?

[PRmerger]

I don’t think one precludes the other.

Exactly my point.

One can have moral absolutes. And one can have a moral norm which evolves as society evolves.

One does not preclude the other.

To uphold some moral standard is to say that, all else being equal, a society that adheres to that standard will be better than one that doesn’t, no matter how much time has elapsed in making that comparison. The fact that morals evolve doesn’t diminish anyone’s enthusiastic support for their own version of morality.

Sure.

As far as I know, the Church doesn’t explicitly state whether a particular teaching is infallible or not

Explicitly, no. That is correct.

at least when the claim being made is falsifiable. I mean, the Church will never make a testable claim about the universe and tack a “by the way, this teaching is infallible” onto it.

I can’t think of any claim the Church would make about the universe, as it applies to God’s revelation.

This means the Church can always backpedal if it’s wrong, while still getting the benefit of an ambiguous definition of infallibility in the meantime.

Oh, absolutely not.

You are confusing “ambiguous definition of infallibility” (the Church’s definition of infallibility is NOT ambiguous at all. That you don’t know what it is ought not be misinterpreted as “The Church’s definition is ambiguous”) with "the Church does not explicitly define all teachings as infallible or not.)

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Hi! Thanks for those links. I didn’t know they have such a great online library. Found a commentary by the great Paul Dirac on Georges Lemaître, once president of the Academy of course. Dirac gives a blow by blow account of how Lemaître’s primeval atom hypothesis, now of course the big bang theory, came about from Lemaître and the other old stuffed shirts (as Linus calls them) trying to make sense of the data.

Dirac makes an interesting aside (page 14): “Once when I was talking with Lemaître about this subject [big bang] and feeling stimulated by the grandeur of the picture that he had given us, I told him that I thought cosmology was the branch of science that lies closest to religion. After thinking it over he suggested psychology as lying closest to religion.”

I too like that 1981 speech. JPII understands that the big bang theory doesn’t state how the universe began (point 2, third paragraph). And in the last sentence of the previous paragraph, he repeats the saying that the Bible teaches how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go - which (having googled it) was recorded by Galileo from a conversation with Cardinal Baronio.

I’m glad you liked those links. Here’s more! I love to read.

1. The 400th Anniversary of the Foundation of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences 1603-2003
   "Galilei made the difference, and projected the Academy in directions which prefigured the role of modern Academies as centers for the promotion of scientific culture and the discussion and evaluation of its progress. Galilei helped his younger colleagues in many ways, both with his personal prestige and in providing them with some of the most advanced tools of the times, such as the microscope. In turn the Academy took upon itself the task of publishing his work and promoting its diffusion in the scientific world and beyond. In moving to the court of Florence, Galilei requested the title of the Grand Duke’s Philosopher, not that, at the time more usual, of Mathematician, which was Kepler’s title at the imperial court in Prague. Galilei thus insisted that Science belongs to the highest reaches of human culture, those which engage in the search for Truth and in studying the means by which Truth can be approached, briefly: to philosophy. In searching for truth, experimental tools as the telescope or the microscope and the theoretical tools offered by mathematics are as essential as the syllogism, experiment and the patient observation of nature, as essential as the more abstract modes of the philosophical discourse. These ideas fully resonated with those of the young prince Cesi and became the distinguishing trait of the Lincei. In 1847 Pius IX adopted the Lincei Academy as an official institution of the Pontifical State, the Pontifical Academy of the New Lincei. The Academy was assigned eminently practical tasks: that of furthering the progress of science and of becoming a center of expertise to cater for the needs of the Pontifical States in the improvement of their technical infrastructure. … "
   casinapioiv.va/content/accademia/en/publications/acta/anniversary.html

Also read this: casinapioiv.va/content/dam/accademia/pdf/acta17.pdf

I hope you have a great day like I’m going to have! I have to run the hound. My husband bicyles 20 miles with her. What a beautiful girlie dog I have. She keeps our mind and body healthy. Take care and may God continue to bless you.

 

[inocente]

I’m as entitled to my own view of morality as any church, am I not?

Of course, and I’ve argued against moral absolutism many times on CAF, so you’re in the majority here and I’m not.

The problem is that the Church’s knowledge, if it indeed comes by God’s revelation, should be timeless. What happened to all of this supposed infallibility?

Well looks down at shoes, mumbles ] I’m not Catholic. I think the argument is that there’s an unfolding understanding of revelation.

Of course our ancestors have made mistakes. We note those mistakes to avoid them in the future. We don’t attempt to defend them or insist that everyone apologize to them. I wouldn’t want my children to defend my mistakes.

And you seem to be making the same argument - that there is a perfect set of morals out there and gradually they are being more perfectly revealed. But in your case by trial and error rather than holy book.

Except it’s unclear where your perfect morals come from. Plato’s cave? The age of consent is absolute, like a law of physics? Please show your derivation.

 

[Oreoracle]

Exactly my point.

One can have moral absolutes. And one can have a moral norm which evolves as society evolves.

What I mean is that every moral norm is really an absolute standard. For example, when people say that stealing is wrong, I don’t think anyone is seriously suggesting that stealing is only wrong in our era/country, but it’s acceptable elsewhere. It’s true that other cultures may think stealing isn’t wrong, but that doesn’t change the fact that we would make our own norms universal if we could.

I can’t think of any claim the Church would make about the universe, as it applies to God’s revelation.

The Church used to make claims about the universe until science made it an occupational hazard to do so. Geocentrism is perhaps the most famous example, but there’s also the idea of a young Earth and creationism. When those ideas fell out of favor, the Church dropped them, only to claim infallibility all over again.

You are confusing “ambiguous definition of infallibility” (the Church’s definition of infallibility is NOT ambiguous at all. That you don’t know what it is ought not be misinterpreted as “The Church’s definition is ambiguous”) with "the Church does not explicitly define all teachings as infallible or not.)

If different people can look at the same teaching and disagree as to whether or not it’s infallible, then the Church’s definition of infallibility is certainly ambiguous.

You may say that perhaps we laypeople are simply too dense to interpret this definition of infallibility. If so, fine. I invite the Church to specify which teachings are infallible and which aren’t. It won’t happen, because the ability to backpedal when an idea becomes unpopular is too precious to lose. Keep in mind that the Church once supported slavery. They aren’t going to risk making a blunder like that again, especially not with the “infallible” label slapped on it. It’s so much easier just to make it unclear whether something’s infallible or not so people can interpret as they wish.

And you seem to be making the same argument - that there is a perfect set of morals out there and gradually they are being more perfectly revealed. But in your case by trial and error rather than holy book.

No, I don’t believe morality is objective, so I don’t think a perfect moral code exists independently of the preferences of sentient beings.

Maybe my comment about my future children seeing my mistakes caused the confusion. They will be mistakes in my children’s minds, not in mine. We could speculate about whether I would concur with my children if I were exposed to the information they would have, but none of this requires an objective standard of morality.

We could compare this to art for an analogy. I have my own artistic preferences, and the more art I see in accord with those preferences, the better. It would also be nice if everyone agreed with my tastes. That doesn’t make my taste in art objective or “correct” in an absolute sense. I can desire for my tastes to be universal without declaring them objective.

 

[inocente]

No, I don’t believe morality is objective, so I don’t think a perfect moral code exists independently of the preferences of sentient beings.

Maybe my comment about my future children seeing my mistakes caused the confusion. They will be mistakes in my children’s minds, not in mine. We could speculate about whether I would concur with my children if I were exposed to the information they would have, but none of this requires an objective standard of morality.

We could compare this to art for an analogy. I have my own artistic preferences, and the more art I see in accord with those preferences, the better. It would also be nice if everyone agreed with my tastes. That doesn’t make my taste in art objective or “correct” in an absolute sense. I can desire for my tastes to be universal without declaring them objective.

Oh right, got you. Agreed, then.

 

[inocente]

"Galilei made the difference, and projected the Academy in directions which prefigured the role of modern Academies as centers for the promotion of scientific culture and the discussion and evaluation of its progress. Galilei helped his younger colleagues in many ways, both with his personal prestige and in providing them with some of the most advanced tools of the times, such as the microscope. In turn the Academy took upon itself the task of publishing his work and promoting its diffusion in the scientific world and beyond. In moving to the court of Florence, Galilei requested the title of the Grand Duke’s Philosopher, not that, at the time more usual, of Mathematician, which was Kepler’s title at the imperial court in Prague. Galilei thus insisted that Science belongs to the highest reaches of human culture, those which engage in the search for Truth and in studying the means by which Truth can be approached, briefly: to philosophy… "
casinapioiv.va/content/accademia/en/publications/acta/anniversary.html

Keep that bit quiet, you’ll get Linus all upset again.

I hope you have a great day like I’m going to have! I have to run the hound. My husband bicyles 20 miles with her. What a beautiful girlie dog I have. She keeps our mind and body healthy. Take care and may God continue to bless you.

Thank you and the same for you.

 

[DavidPalm]

The Church used to make claims about the universe until science made it an occupational hazard to do so. Geocentrism is perhaps the most famous example, but there’s also the idea of a young Earth and creationism. When those ideas fell out of favor, the Church dropped them, only to claim infallibility all over again.

There is no official, magisterial document in which the Church insists on geocentrism. Read according to her own canonical norms, that is read strictly, the most that she has ever addressed is a strict heliocentrism, which holds to an immobile sun at the center of the universe (and nobody today holds such a view.) And even that was addressed in venues which the Church herself does not consider infallible. See Geocentrism and Strict Canonical Interpretation.

On the other hand, the Magisterium has given explicit permission for the faithful to hold to the motion of the earth. See The Magisterium Rules: The Debate is Over

As for the young earth and creationism, I’m unaware of any official magisterial teaching on this except for the permission to hold that the “days” of creation were not literal twenty-four hour days, given by the Pontifical Biblical Commission under Pope St. Pius X.

I invite the Church to specify which teachings are infallible and which aren’t. It won’t happen…

Check out this list from the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith:

To the truths of the first paragraph [NB: those which have been “infallibly proposed for belief by the ordinary and universal Magisterium”] belong the articles of faith of the Creed, the various Christological dogmas and Marian dogmas; the doctrine of the institution of the sacraments by Christ and their efficacy with regard to grace; the doctrine of the real and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the sacrificial nature of the eucharistic celebration; the foundation of the Church by the will of Christ; the doctrine on the primacy and infallibility of the Roman Pontiff; the doctrine on the existence of original sin; the doctrine on the immortality of the spiritual soul and on the immediate recompense after death; the absence of error in the inspired sacred texts; the doctrine on the grave immorality of direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being. (Doctrinal Commentary on Professio Fidei)

So there’s the answer to your invitation. Hope this is helpful…

 

[grannymh]

The Church used to make claims about the universe until science made it an occupational hazard to do so. Geocentrism is perhaps the most famous example, but there’s also the idea of a young Earth and creationism. When those ideas fell out of favor, the Church dropped them, only to claim infallibility all over again.

If different people can look at the same teaching and disagree as to whether or not it’s infallible, then the Church’s definition of infallibility is certainly ambiguous.

You may say that perhaps we laypeople are simply too dense to interpret this definition of infallibility. If so, fine. I invite the Church to specify which teachings are infallible and which aren’t.

Had to laugh at the reference to an occupational hazard. When it comes to science declarations, that is so true – because it is individuals, not the Catholic Church, who are on stage.

Infallibility only pertains to the Catholic Deposit of Faith. Natural Science is up for grabs. For example. Despite miles of documents, there is no infallible doctrine on Geocentism or any other strictly science theory. What does happen when a strictly science theory intersects or contradicts a real Catholic doctrine, is that the infallible truth of Divine Revelation is restated.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Two points here: Firstly, almost every evil action could be defended on the basis that the person who did it thought it was right. Hitler thought he was doing what was in the best interest of Germany, for example. The human gift to rationalize our own actions is endless.

Secondly, the truth needn’t be “protected”. In modern civilized societies, people are allowed to declare absurdities from the rooftops, yet truth still prevails. It prevails because acting with information is more effective than acting with misinformation. It’s one of the insights of democracy that truth is established naturally through free discourse rather than bureaucratic mandate.

That’s strange, especially considering the title of your thread and your insistence that we apologize to the Church.

Yes, and there were historical reasons for slavery. That’s not a defense of slavery.

I’m as entitled to my own view of morality as any church, am I not?

The problem is that the Church’s knowledge, if it indeed comes by God’s revelation, should be timeless. What happened to all of this supposed infallibility?

Of course our ancestors have made mistakes. We note those mistakes to avoid them in the future. We don’t attempt to defend them or insist that everyone apologize to them. I wouldn’t want my children to defend my mistakes.

Oracle, you need to read the O.P. again. I never insisted on anything.

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Keep that bit quiet, you’ll get Linus all upset again.

Thank you and the same for you.

I protest the use of my name in vain . He who laughs last laughs best, I guess we will get a final answer in the next life. For it looks like we will not have one in this life. Never the less, the Church continues to be slammed at every opportunity. Got to keep her in her place, you know.

Linus2nd

 

[Oreoracle]

Oracle, you need to read the O.P. again. I never insisted on anything.

Alright, let’s have another look:

It is beginning to look like Copernius and Galileo were wrong and the Church was righgt. It now appears that the earth may indeed be the center of the universe. So the question is, will the world apologize for the abuse that has been heaped upon it for the last 500 years? Will the professors in our universities across the land stop upbrating the Church? At the very least **they should admit **that actually determining the center of the universe is far from being as easy as Copernicus and Galileo thought.

The bolding is mine. While you never explicitly stated that people should apologize, you did state that making admissions is the very least they should do, and you asked rhetorical questions suggestively. I don’t know why you would ask “Will the world apologize for the abuse!” if you aren’t implying that they should do so.

So yes, you aren’t insisting on anything in the same way that an irritating sibling really isn’t touching his sister while hovering his finger an inch from her face. If you want to keep playing the forum version of “I’m not touching you”, then be my guest, but it’s fooling no one.

 

[Oreoracle]

Infallibility only pertains to the Catholic Deposit of Faith. Natural Science is up for grabs.

I’m not familiar with all Catholic doctrine, so you’ll have to be patient with me. Are teachings from this Deposit of Faith officially labeled as such? In other words, are we forced to philosophize about what is or isn’t in the Deposit?

Also, I want to point out that “natural science” is, of course, a modern term. All matters that could have practical value were once deemed part of natural philosophy (even math, a purely abstract endeavor). So historically the distinction isn’t very clear.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Alright, let’s have another look:

The bolding is mine. While you never explicitly stated that people should apologize, you did state that making admissions is the very least they should do, and you asked rhetorical questions suggestively. I don’t know why you would ask “Will the world apologize for the abuse!” if you aren’t implying that they should do so.

So yes, you aren’t insisting on anything in the same way that an irritating sibling really isn’t touching his sister while hovering his finger an inch from her face. If you want to keep playing the forum version of “I’m not touching you”, then be my guest, but it’s fooling no one.

You are still reading something that isn’t there. And don’t you think the abuse has gone on long enough? It begins to appear that it is just a convenient club to use in the science texts and classrooms where other excuses might not be appropriate.

Linus2nd

 

[PRmerger]

What I mean is that every moral norm is really an absolute standard. For example, when people say that stealing is wrong, I don’t think anyone is seriously suggesting that stealing is only wrong in our era/country, but it’s acceptable elsewhere. It’s true that other cultures may think stealing isn’t wrong, but that doesn’t change the fact that we would make our own norms universal if we could.

So are you saying it’s always wrong, in all places, in all times, for every culture, to stop someone from publishing scientific research?

The Church used to make claims about the universe until science made it an occupational hazard to do so. Geocentrism is perhaps the most famous example, but there’s also the idea of a young Earth and creationism. When those ideas fell out of favor, the Church dropped them, only to claim infallibility all over again.

Perhaps you are confusing declarations of Catholics with declarations of the Catholic Church.

Could you show where the CC, and not individual members of the Church, declared geocentrism to be a definitive teaching?

If different people can look at the same teaching and disagree as to whether or not it’s infallible, then the Church’s definition of infallibility is certainly ambiguous.

Perhaps if you could first articulate what the Church’s definition of infallibility is we could discuss further.

You may say that perhaps we laypeople are simply too dense to interpret this definition of infallibility.

I would never say that.

Keep in mind that the Church once supported slavery.

Again, you seem to be confusing what Catholics do with what the Church teaches.

I defy you to offer any teaching from the Church that “once supported slavery”.

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

I defy you to offer any teaching from the Church that “once supported slavery”.

What is it that constitutes a teaching? Is there a list to be found somewhere of teachings throughout history? I get confused when this becomes a “gotcha” game where someone can simply say, “oops, no, that doesn’t count as a ‘teaching’, try again!” or this idea that the Church can do as She pleases, violating the commandments every which way, just so long as she doesn’t ‘teach’ that.

To the point: would the Bible count as Church teaching? God was behind that, yes? So in Ephesians, God tells us that slaves are to obey their masters. It has often been pointed out that this is a “different kind” of slavery than the one the modern mind might think of, but perhaps not so different as God informs us in Exodus that it is OK to beat slaves, even to the point of death (but not OK if they die immediately).

 

[PRmerger]

What is it that constitutes a teaching? Is there a list to be found somewhere of teachings throughout history? I get confused when this becomes a “gotcha” game where someone can simply say, “oops, no, that doesn’t count as a ‘teaching’, try again!” or this idea that the Church can do as She pleases, violating the commandments every which way, just so long as she doesn’t ‘teach’ that.

I think the best answer to your question is found in Jimmy Akin’s article “How to weigh Church teachings” in Catholic Answers March-April 2013 issue.

To the point: would the Bible count as Church teaching? God was behind that, yes? So in Ephesians, God tells us that slaves are to obey their masters. It has often been pointed out that this is a “different kind” of slavery than the one the modern mind might think of, but perhaps not so different as God informs us in Exodus that it is OK to beat slaves, even to the point of death (but not OK if they die immediately).

The Bible must be interpreted through the lens of the Faith which gave us this Bible.

Thus, we look to the Church for what these verses in Ephesians mean.

When we interpret them without the Catholic Church’s lens, we get all sorts of weird and odd conclusions.

 

[oldcelt]

I think the best answer to your question is found in Jimmy Akin’s article “How to weigh Church teachings” in Catholic Answers March-April 2013 issue.

The Bible must be interpreted through the lens of the Faith which gave us this Bible.

Thus, we look to the Church for what these verses in Ephesians mean.

When we interpret them without the Catholic Church’s lens, we get all sorts of weird and odd conclusions.

Or, we could view it all as irrelevant in our age, many centuries on. What those believed to be inspired all those centuries ago…may not have been. If God has something to say, can He not say it now?

 

[grannymh]

What is it that constitutes a teaching? Is there a list to be found somewhere of teachings throughout history? I get confused when this becomes a “gotcha” game where someone can simply say, “oops, no, that doesn’t count as a ‘teaching’, try again!” or this idea that the Church can do as She pleases, violating the commandments every which way, just so long as she doesn’t ‘teach’ that.

To the point: would the Bible count as Church teaching? God was behind that, yes? So in Ephesians, God tells us that slaves are to obey their masters. It has often been pointed out that this is a “different kind” of slavery than the one the modern mind might think of, but perhaps not so different as God informs us in Exodus that it is OK to beat slaves, even to the point of death (but not OK if they die immediately).

May I briefly offer a rather silly answer. Our rational minds need to use common sense when it comes to Catholic Church teachings regarding the path to joy eternal with our Creator.

 

[PRmerger]

If God has something to say, can He not say it now?

What more needs to be said when the Word Made Flesh spoke 2000 years ago?

 

[PRmerger]

We could compare this to art for an analogy. I have my own artistic preferences, and the more art I see in accord with those preferences, the better. It would also be nice if everyone agreed with my tastes. That doesn’t make my** taste in art objective or “correct” in an absolute sense. I can desire for my tastes** to be universal without declaring them objective.

I can see how your analogy would be appropriate for personal tastes. So, for example, I would be perfectly happy applying your view to my opinion regarding turnips. My taste declares that they are icky. But I would never declare that all society must conform to my own tastes.

However, to apply your analogy to moral issues seems rather inutile. What that does is leaves you in no position to tell this guy that he is 100% wrong. It leaves you in the same useless position as saying, “I believe turnips are gross. You like them. More power to you. I believe that God loves everyone. You believe that God hates homosexuals. More power to you.”